Appeal No. 2002-1099 5
Application No. 09/208,119
obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art in view of Koizumi to provide a shorter panel for
the spine of Hehn, presumably so that the spine of Hehn ends at the tabs 32, “to save
material cost” (answer, page 4). There is nothing in the combined teachings of Hehn and
Koizumi, however, that would have suggested this proposed modification. More
particularly, the examiner has directed us to nothing in either Hehn or Koizumi that
suggests or teaches that the spine of Koizumi is shortened relative to the width of the main
body member 2 and lid member 4 for any reason whatsoever, much less for the reason
proposed by the examiner, i.e., to save on the cost of material. Furthermore, since the
sidewalls of the main body member and lid member of Koizumi extend around the side
edges of the members, apparently to compensate for the fact that the spine does not
extend the full width of said members, it is entirely possible that the sort of construction
shown in Koizumi requires the use of more, rather than less, material. In this light, it is
evident that the only suggestion to combine Hehn and Koizumi in the manner proposed by
the examiner stems from hindsight knowledge impermissibly derived from appellants’
disclosure. This constitutes a first reason for reversing the examiner’s rejection of claims
18, 19, 24, 30, 31, 33 and 35 as being unpatentable over Hehn in view of Koizumi and
Nakasuji.
In addition, the examiner contends that it would have been obvious to provide
Hehn’s container with a lock mechanism of the type disclosed in Nakasuji. Be that as it
may, the resulting container would not comprise at least one set of locking holes
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007